This desperate act was passed under duress when the country was weak and financially bankrupt. After the pain and financial burden of Civil War, The London Rothschild family saw great opportunity, along with their army of carpet-bagers, to take complete control of Americas financial future, from the inside out. It was then we became a nation of debt slaves, with the complete suspension of our Bill of Rights and Constitution when the word "for' was changed to "of" in the title.
In this process, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA became the Constitution of the incorporated UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it governs the Republic. It does not! Capitalization is NOT insignificant when one is referring to a legal document, and this seemingly “minor” alteration has had a major impact on every subsequent generations of Americans.
Let us reiterate...
What Congress did by passing the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the government of the District of Columbia, an INCORPORATED government. This newly altered Constitution was not intended to benefit the Republic at all. It benefits only the corporation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and operates entirely outside the original (organic) Constitution.
Have you noticed that corporations are now considered live entities, and can back a candidate by donations? By passing the Act of 1871, Congress committed TREASON against the People who were Sovereign under the grants and decrees of the Declaration of Independence and the organic Constitution. and so, if you want your country back, We the People, this would be a good place to start...
Also of note...
Election Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court tossed out years of
campaign finance law by ruling that corporations and labor unions have
the same First Amendment freedom of speech rights as individuals in
using their funds to support or oppose candidates for election. In his
dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens raised an interesting,
if somewhat sarcastic question: does this mean corporations can vote
problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting
is, among other things, a form of speech," wrote Justice Stevens.